Matching Expectations in the 'new world': OFSTED and NCTL

1. Matching Expectations in the 'new world': OFSTED and NCTL Professor Samantha Twiselton Founding Director - Sheffield Institute of Education (Formerly Executive Dean at University of Cumbria)

2. Key design and delivery considerations • Programme design reflects the expertise and range of schools (Special Schools, Teaching Schools, PRUs, Designations) • Programme delivery : indicate expert practitioner involvement at all levels – consider shared appointments/flexible deployment across schools/centre-based • Strategic Management – school involvement in Board • Raised focus on Recruitment & Selection and Partnership • Evaluate provision against : Ofsted Framework; Partnership Audit; Special School/PRU prompts; School-led prompts • Review Partnership Agreement • Audit of SSP, Behaviour, SEN(D) & application of emerging guidance and materials

3. Action – all providers: • Review provision against policy drivers & statements • Determine ways of developing & promoting School Direct across the partnership • Consider key prompts in ‘School-led & school-based ITT’ questions • Consider extent to which Teaching Schools are fully leading and shaping ITT in your partnership • Develop partnerships with Special Schools & foundation- setting for further development of PRU early implementers’ work • Ensure revised SED evidence focuses on impact & outcomes of school-led/based provision • Review provision against the new (Sept 2012) Inspection Handbook (specifically noting paras 106 & 107 re: focus of inspection on the partnership)

4. Large scale inspection of all primary and secondary programmes - November 2012 - outcomes - 2 in every cell Inspection of GTP (26 primary student teachers) - February 2013 - outcomes - 1 in every cell Further relevant info: 3rd largest School Direct partner for 2013 Long history of school based ITE in some subjects Move to school embedded approaches to ITE across all programmes BUT - very large provider - outcome data a challenge - particularly in relation to employment (students not prepared to move to gain employment) Context - University of Cumbria

5. Not yet inspected under new OFSTED framework - current status under previous framework - 'Good with outstanding features' Further relevant info: 4th largest School Direct partner for 2013 Long history of deep partnership working Long history of innovation and creativity Excellent data in all phases BUT - large cross-phase provider - working with many schools Context - Sheffield Hallam University

6. Consultant Schools Groups informing policy Designation of different levels of partnership A robust QA system overseen by a well trained and cogent ULT team. All these processes designed and planned in partnership with Head Teachers. School involvement in recruitment, training and assessment. Clear school representation on all governance committees etc. Partnership clearly embedded across all activities in ITE. Some challenges re cross phase harmonisation Sheffield Hallam University - inspected March 2012

7. Programme design reflects the expertise and range of schools (Special Schools, Teaching Schools, PRUs, Designations) • Programme delivery : indicate expert practitioner involvement at all levels – consider shared appointments/flexible deployment across schools/centre-based • Strategic Management – school involvement in Board • Raised focus on Recruitment & Selection and Partnership • Evaluate provision against : Ofsted Framework; Partnership Audit; Special School/PRU prompts; School-led prompts • Review Partnership Agreement • Audit of SSP, Behaviour, SEN(D) & application of emerging guidance and materials Key to both inspections - central to 'outstanding' in GTP. School partners need to present as seeing themselves as equal partners who are fully involved in all aspects and 'own' ITE improvement priorities School based training crucial School embedded approaches with impact data Shared appointments Senior ownership in HEI and schools Fundamental to GTP 'outstanding' - story from previous inspection to current. Involvement of teachers and (ideally) exposure to pupils High expectations re knowledge of schools and how strengths and weaknesses are matched to individual needs. Key strength - role/ownership of schools in how/where students placed Maths, phonics, English, behaviour, SEN(D) very closely scrutinised - both phases Key design and delivery considerations (Jeff Williams, July 2012) - Cumbria's experience MUCH OF THE ABOVE WAS MAINLY TESTED THROUGH NQTS AND RQTS - VERY IMPORTANT

8. Review provision against policy drivers & statements • Determine ways of developing & promoting School Direct across the partnership • Consider key prompts in ‘School-led & school-based ITT’ questions • Consider extent to which Teaching Schools are fully leading and shaping ITT in your partnership • Develop partnerships with Special Schools & foundation- setting for further development of PRU early implementers’ work • Ensure revised SED evidence focuses on impact & outcomes of school-led/based provision • Review provision against the new (Sept 2012) Inspection Handbook (specifically noting paras 106 & 107 re: focus of inspection on the partnership) • VC/SMT and Board level discussion and agreement - high level project management - key focus on risk register: • Top level agree to embrace/expand School Direct from initial pilot • School embedded approaches key plank of improvement planning - impact data collection systematised • Key schools and students on stand by - prompts ready to use when call came - army of tutors working throughout the notice period - agreement for weekend working or key services • Teaching Schools, alliances, work with Special Schools and PRUs very important - top level engagement • Impact data very important - tracking of and intervention with NQTS, evidence of '2'ness for those exiting with 3s. NQT post very important. • Impact on pupil outcomes central to 'outstanding' • Associate Dean (Quality) - off all other duties from September Action – all providers: (Jeff Williams, July 2012)

9. School embedded approaches • Impact data and systems for analysing and using • Top level engagement in HEI and schools • Cross institutional briefings - no time for explanation/argument when call comes • Invest in NQTs/RQTs • Ownership of data and priorities at all levels and in all contexts • The story between inspections very important • The developing inspections trails very important - 'Keep in Touch' meetings at the end of every day very, very helpful SUMMARY